cases

Question 1

R (On the Application of the Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2003] 1 FCR 110

Answer 1

Facts: The case involved a transgender individual who sought to have their gender legally recognized as female, and subsequently, wanted to change their gender on their birth certificate. The issue was whether the Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages could legally alter the sex recorded on the birth certificate.

Legal Issue: The legal challenge was around the statutory interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which did not provide a clear answer regarding whether a transgender person could change their gender on official records.

Ruling: The court held that the registrar was not obligated to issue a new birth certificate, as the law did not provide a clear pathway for recognizing the gender change. It clarified the scope of gender recognition in legal documents and statutory interpretation.

Question 2

Vervaeke v Smith [1983] 1 AC 145

Answer 2

Facts: The case concerned whether a marriage could be annulled due to one party’s mental incapacity, raising the issue of whether an individual was capable of giving valid consent to a marriage if they were mentally impaired.

Legal Issue: Whether mental incapacity at the time of the marriage could invalidate it under English law.

Ruling: The House of Lords ruled that a marriage could be annulled if one party lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature of the marriage contract. This case clarified the grounds for annulment due to lack of mental capacity.

Question 3

Clarke v Clarke [1943] 2 All ER 540

Answer 3

Facts: This case involved the validity of a marriage when one of the spouses was mentally incapacitated.

Legal Issue: Whether the marriage could be declared void because the individual lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the marriage at the time of the ceremony.

Ruling: The court ruled that the marriage was voidable due to the party’s lack of mental capacity to consent to marriage.

Question 4

D-E v A-G [1845] EngR 821

Answer 4

Facts: Involved a petition to dissolve a marriage due to bigamy.

Legal Issue: Whether a marriage conducted in these circumstances was void under the law.

Ruling: The court ruled that the marriage was void due to the defendant’s prior marriage, making the second marriage illegal.

Question 5

W (orse K) v W [1967] 1 WLR 1554

Answer 5

Facts: This case examined the circumstances under which a divorce can be granted based on unreasonable behavior and whether a party could claim this ground.

Legal Issue: The issue revolved around whether the conduct of one spouse was sufficiently unreasonable to justify a divorce.

Ruling: The court ruled that conduct which made it impossible for one party to live with the other could justify a divorce, focusing on the definition of “unreasonable behavior.”

Question 6

Baxter v Baxter [1948] AC 274

Answer 6

Facts: This case concerned whether a divorce should be granted on the grounds of desertion.

Legal Issue: Whether desertion, under the definition of English law at the time, could lead to a divorce.

Ruling: The House of Lords ruled that desertion was a valid ground for divorce, and this case further clarified what constitutes desertion.

Question 7

S v S [1955] P 1

Answer 7

Facts: The case dealt with a contested divorce where one party claimed that the marriage should be annulled due to force or duress at the time of marriage.

Legal Issue: Whether marriage obtained under duress could be annulled.

Ruling: The court ruled that a marriage could be annulled if it could be proven that one party was coerced or forced into the marriage.

Question 8

G v G [1924]

Answer 8

Facts: This case involved the divorce petition of one spouse who claimed adultery as the grounds.

Legal Issue: Whether the act of adultery was sufficient grounds for the court to grant a divorce.

Ruling: The court granted the divorce, emphasizing adultery as valid grounds for divorce under English law.

Question 9

Singh v Singh [1971] P 226

Answer 9

Facts: The case concerned forced marriages and whether a marriage contracted under coercion could be annulled.

Legal Issue: Whether the marriage was valid if one party was coerced into the union.

Ruling: The court annulled the marriage, confirming that coercion could render a marriage voidable.

Question 10

Horton v Horton [1972] 2 All ER 871

Answer 10

Facts: The case concerned whether financial arrangements could be made in a divorce, particularly regarding the division of property and assets.

Legal Issue: Whether financial settlements could include the division of matrimonial property.

Ruling: The court ruled that financial settlements in divorce could include the division of both assets and property to ensure fairness.

Question 11

Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317

Answer 11

Facts: A case where a woman cohabited with a man for many years but had no formal marriage contract or property rights despite her contributions.

Legal Issue: The legal issue was whether the woman could claim rights to the property under trust law or whether she had any claim under cohabitation law.

Ruling: The court ruled that unmarried cohabitants have limited property rights and that equitable claims based on contributions must be proven. This case highlighted the lack of legal protections for cohabiting couples.

Question 11

Week 2 - Cohabitation

Question 12

Radmacher v Grantino [2010] UKSC 42

Answer 12

Facts: A case involving a prenuptial agreement where one party sought to uphold the agreement which would limit financial settlements after divorce.

Legal Issue: Whether prenuptial agreements should be enforced in the UK and if they are considered in the division of assets during divorce.

Ruling: The UK Supreme Court ruled in favor of enforcing prenuptial agreements in certain circumstances, specifically where there is no unfairness or coercion involved.

Question 13

Week 3 - Legal parenthood

Question 14

Banbury Peerage Case (1811) 1 Sim & St 153 HL

Answer 14

Facts: The case centered on the legitimacy of a child and whether they could inherit a peerage title.

Legal Issue: The issue was whether the legitimacy of a child could be questioned after the father’s death, specifically in relation to inheritance.

Ruling: The court ruled that legitimacy must be proven in such cases, setting a precedent for determining the legitimacy of children for inheritance purposes.

Question 15

R v SS for Social Security, ex parte West [1999] 1 FLR 1233

Answer 15

Facts: The case involved a dispute over whether a person was the parent of a child and thus entitled to claim social security benefits.

Legal Issue: The issue concerned the criteria for determining parental responsibility and whether it was necessary to be recognized as a legal parent for benefits.

Ruling: The court ruled that biological ties alone do not establish legal parenthood for the purposes of claims.

Question 16

Ampthill Peerage Case [1977] AC 547 at 577

Answer 16

Facts: The case dealt with whether a child born outside of wedlock could inherit a peerage.

Legal Issue: Whether legal status as a child (legitimate or illegitimate) affects inheritance of titles.

Ruling: The court ruled that legitimacy was necessary to inherit peerage titles, reinforcing the traditional view that only legitimate children could inherit titles.

Question 17

Re G (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 729 (Fam)

Answer 17

Facts: This case dealt with the application of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in determining the parentage of children born from assisted reproductive techniques.

Legal Issue: Whether the legal status of a parent could be determined by the nature of assisted reproduction methods, including sperm or egg donation.

Ruling: The court upheld that the birth mother and her partner were recognized as legal parents, even if biological ties were through donated sperm or eggs.

Question 18

week 5 - divorce and dissolution

Question 19

Hopes v Hopes [1949] P 227

Answer 19

Facts: This case involved a contested divorce where one spouse claimed cruelty as a ground for divorce.

Legal Issue: The issue was whether the mental cruelty experienced by one spouse was sufficient to justify a divorce.

Ruling: The court ruled that mental cruelty, when severe enough to make continued cohabitation impossible, could form the basis for a divorce under English law.

Question 20

Hollens v Hollens (1971) 115 SJ 327

Answer 20

Facts: The case concerned a divorce where the unreasonable behavior of one spouse was alleged.

Legal Issue: Whether the spouse’s behavior was truly unreasonable under the legal standard for divorce.

Ruling: The court ruled that unreasonable behavior, even if not violent, could be grounds for divorce if it made continued cohabitation impossible.

Question 21

Mouncer v Mouncer [1972] 1 All ER 289

Answer 21

Facts: This case dealt with the grounds for divorce based on desertion.

Legal Issue: Whether desertion, where one spouse leaves the other without consent, constitutes valid grounds for divorce.

Ruling: The court confirmed that desertion could be grounds for divorce under English law.

Question 22

Katz v Katz [1972] 3 All ER 219

Answer 22

Facts: The case involved financial settlement issues following a divorce.

Legal Issue: The key issue was how to divide property and financial resources after a divorce.

Ruling: The court emphasized that financial fairness should guide property settlements in divorce cases.

Question 23

Thurlow v Thurlow [1975] 2 All ER 979

Answer 23

Facts: A divorce case involving the distribution of assets after a marriage breakdown.

Legal Issue: The dispute was about the fair division of matrimonial assets.

Ruling: The court ruled that the principle of equal division of assets should be applied unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying a departure.

Question 24

O’Neill v O’Neill [1975] 3 All ER 289

Answer 24

Facts: The case concerned the division of property and financial support after divorce. Legal Issue: Whether one spouse was entitled to a greater share of the marital property based on contributions during the marriage. Ruling: The court ruled that equitable distribution should be applied, considering both financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage.

Question 25

Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC

Answer 25

Facts: This case raised the issue of whether a petition for divorce based on unreasonable behavior could be rejected when one spouse did not agree to the divorce. Legal Issue: Whether a party can refuse a divorce even if the other claims unreasonable behavior as grounds. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner could not get a divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behavior without proving that it was truly intolerable to continue living together.

Question 26

Week 7 - breakdown of relationships

Question 27

Thomas v Thomas [1996] 2 FCR 544, 546

Answer 27

Facts: This case involved the allocation of financial resources upon the breakdown of a marriage. Legal Issue: The court considered whether financial contributions by a spouse were fairly reflected in the division of assets. Ruling: The court held that financial and non-financial contributions should be taken into account when dividing assets during divorce.

Question 28

White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981

Answer 28

Facts: A landmark case in family law concerning the division of matrimonial assets. Legal Issue: Whether there should be a presumption of equal division of matrimonial assets in divorce settlements. Ruling: The House of Lords ruled that there should be a presumption of equal division of assets unless there were exceptional reasons for a different outcome. This decision reshaped the approach to property settlements after divorce.

Question 29

Miller; McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24

Answer 29

Facts: These cases dealt with financial settlements after divorce, focusing on the amount and duration of spousal maintenance. Legal Issue: The legal issue was how to balance financial support for a spouse with the fair distribution of marital assets. Ruling: The House of Lords established that needs should be the primary consideration in spousal maintenance cases, but also clarified the role of compensation for non-financial contributions to the marriage.

Question 30

Robson v Robson [2010] EWCA Civ 1171

Answer 30

Facts: The case dealt with a financial dispute after the breakdown of a marriage, focusing on the division of assets. Legal Issue: The key issue was whether the needs of the spouse and children should dictate the financial settlement. Ruling: The Court of Appeal ruled that the primary focus should be on the needs of the spouse and children, but also took into account the standard of living during the marriage.

Question 31

Suter v Suter and Jones [1987] 2 FLR 232

Answer 31

Facts: This case concerned financial provision following a divorce. Legal Issue: The case examined whether one spouse could claim a larger share of the assets based on their contribution during the marriage. Ruling: The court ruled that both financial and non-financial contributions should be considered in determining the division of assets.

Question 32

RK v RK [2012] 3 FCR 44

Answer 32

Facts: A divorce case concerning the division of assets and the standard of living during marriage. Legal Issue: The issue was how to allocate resources and property after the divorce. Ruling: The court reinforced the importance of meeting the needs of both parties and any children while considering fairness in the division of assets.

Question 33

B v B (Financial Provision: Welfare of Child and Conduct) [2002] 1 FLR 555

Answer 33

Facts: This case concerned the impact of spousal conduct on financial provision after divorce, particularly in cases where children were involved. Legal Issue: Whether the conduct of a party (such as adultery or abuse) should influence the division of assets. Ruling: The court ruled that while conduct can be considered, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in any financial provision decision.

Question 34

Leadbeater v Leadbeater [1985] 1 FLR 789

Answer 34

Facts: This case involved a dispute over the division of assets after a divorce. Legal Issue: Whether one spouse was entitled to a larger share of the marital property based on their contributions during the marriage. Ruling: The court ruled that non-financial contributions (such as raising children or supporting the other spouse) should be considered when dividing assets.

Question 35

Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34

Answer 35

Facts: The case focused on whether properties held in a company could be considered as part of a divorce settlement. Legal Issue: Whether a spouse could argue that properties held by companies in which they had a controlling interest should be included in the division of assets. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that assets held by companies were subject to being treated as part of the marital estate if they were used for the benefit of the marriage.

Question 36

week 7 - child arrangement order

Question 37

Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-sex partner) [2006] UKHL 43

Answer 37

Facts: The case involved determining the residence of children following the breakup of a relationship between same-sex partners. Legal Issue: Whether a non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship could be granted residence of the children. Ruling: The House of Lords ruled that the welfare of the children should be the paramount consideration, allowing a non-biological parent to be considered for residence.

Question 38

J v C [1970] AC 668

Answer 38

Facts: This case involved determining custody and visitation rights following a divorce. Legal Issue: The case examined the interpretation of welfare when making decisions about child custody. Ruling: The court emphasized the importance of considering the welfare of the child when determining custody and visitation rights.

Question 39

Re H (Contact Order) [2010] EWCA Civ 448

Answer 39

Facts: This case involved a dispute over whether a contact order should be made, allowing a parent to have contact with a child. Legal Issue: Whether it was in the child’s best interest to allow the non-residential parent contact despite objections. Ruling: The court ruled that contact orders should be made if it is in the best interest of the child, even if one parent objects.

Question 40

week 8 - domestic abuse

Question 41

Lau v DPP [2000] 1 FLR 799

Answer 41

Facts: This case dealt with domestic abuse allegations where the defendant argued that the case should not proceed because the victim was in a relationship with the defendant. Legal Issue: Whether a domestic violence conviction can stand when the victim is in a relationship with the accused. Ruling: The court found that a domestic violence case could proceed despite the defendant’s relationship with the victim, stressing the need for protection from harm irrespective of the relationship status.

Question 42

R v Colohan [2001] 3 FCR 409

Answer 42

Facts: The case involved a domestic violence allegation where the defendant sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to deal with a domestic abuse issue. Legal Issue: Whether domestic abuse cases should be dealt with in a family court or criminal court, and whether one court has exclusive jurisdiction. Ruling: The court held that domestic violence cases could be heard in both criminal and family courts, depending on the nature of the case, and family courts have jurisdiction over protection orders like non-molestation orders.

Question 43

George v George [1986] 2 FLR 347

Answer 43

Facts: A domestic abuse case where the wife sought a non-molestation order against the husband after he made threats and used physical violence. Legal Issue: Whether a non-molestation order could be granted to protect the wife from physical and psychological harm. Ruling: The court granted the non-molestation order to protect the wife, acknowledging that physical abuse and threats are sufficient grounds to issue such orders, and emphasized the importance of protecting vulnerable parties.

Question 44

Horner v Horner [1982] 2 All ER 495

Answer 44

Facts: This case involved a violent relationship in which the wife sought legal protection from further harm. Legal Issue: Whether a non-molestation order could be issued where domestic violence was proven. Ruling: The court upheld the granting of a non-molestation order as it found that the wife had been subject to significant harm, including emotional and physical abuse.

Question 45

Spencer v Camacho (1984) 4 FLR 662

Answer 45

Facts: This case involved a dispute over a non-molestation order after one party sought protection from ongoing harassment and threats. Legal Issue: Whether there were sufficient grounds to impose a non-molestation order against the defendant. Ruling: The court ruled that the allegations were serious enough to grant a non-molestation order, reaffirming the necessity of safeguarding individuals who were experiencing domestic violence or harassment.

Question 46

G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction) [2000] 2 FCR 638

Answer 46

Facts: The case focused on whether a family court had jurisdiction to issue a non-molestation order when the defendant had not been charged with a crime. Legal Issue: The jurisdiction of the family court to grant a non-molestation order without the need for criminal charges. Ruling: The court held that the family court could issue non-molestation orders even in the absence of criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the welfare of the complainant was the paramount concern.

Question 47

B v B [1999] 1 FLR 715

Answer 47

Facts: The case concerned the granting of a non-molestation order following allegations of severe domestic violence and emotional abuse. Legal Issue: Whether emotional abuse and threatening behavior could justify the issuance of a non-molestation order. Ruling: The court ruled that emotional abuse, alongside physical abuse, was grounds to issue a non-molestation order, acknowledging the harmful impact of both types of abuse.

Question 48

Re J-S (A Child) (Contact: Parental Responsibility) [2002] 3 FCR 433

Answer 48

Facts: This case involved a dispute over contact with a child after allegations of domestic abuse between the parents. Legal Issue: Whether a parent could be granted contact with the child despite allegations of domestic violence. Ruling: The court ruled that contact with the child should be suspended when allegations of domestic abuse are serious, and it was necessary to ensure the child’s welfare was not compromised.

Question 49

Re A (Suspended Residence Order) [2010] 1 FLR 1679

Answer 49

Facts: A case where a residence order for a child was suspended due to ongoing domestic violence between the parents. Legal Issue: Whether a residence order could be suspended where there was evidence of domestic abuse affecting the child’s safety. Ruling: The court decided to suspend the residence order until further assessments could be made, highlighting the need for protecting the child from potential harm arising from ongoing domestic violence.

Question 50

Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147

Answer 50

Facts: A case in which the mother sought to prevent contact between the child and the father due to concerns of domestic violence. Legal Issue: Whether contact orders could be enforced when there were allegations of domestic violence. Ruling: The court ruled that contact orders should not be enforced where there was evidence of significant risk to the child’s safety or welfare from domestic violence.

Question 53

Re A (Supervised Contact Order) [2015] EWCA Civ 486

Answer 53

Facts: The case involved the issue of supervised contact between a father and his child after domestic violence allegations. Legal Issue: Whether supervised contact should be ordered in situations where there were concerns over domestic abuse. Ruling: The court ruled that supervised contact could be appropriate where there were concerns for the child's safety, ensuring that the contact could take place in a controlled and safe environment.